1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court rules in favor of Revenue, overturns Commissioner (Appeal) decision on iron ore fines export refund claim</h1> The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, allowing their appeal and overturning the Commissioner (Appeal)'s decision. The respondent's refund claims for ... Refund claim - denial on the ground that the shipping bills and the Bill of lading are not in the name of the respondent - Held that: - the name of M/s. Liberty Marine Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Resource International Pvt. Ltd. were mentioned in the shipping bills at the time when the goods were exported. Therefore, they are the exporter under the Customs Act - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue. Issues:1. Refund claims for export of iron ore fines under Notification No. 17/2009-ST.2. Eligibility of the respondent as an exporter for refund of Service Tax.3. Interpretation of terms 'exporter' and 'export goods' under Customs Act, 1962.4. Validity of the Commissioner (Appeal)'s decision based on preponderance factor.Analysis:1. The respondent filed refund claims for exporting iron ore fines under Notification No. 17/2009-ST. The adjudicating authority rejected the claims citing discrepancies in shipping documents not in the respondent's name.2. The respondent argued that due to restrictions at Paradeep Port Trust, exports were facilitated through other companies. They claimed entitlement to the refund as they received payments and placed orders, considering themselves as exporters. The Commissioner (Appeal) sided with the respondent, deeming them as exporters eligible for the refund.3. The dispute centered on whether the respondent qualified as an exporter under the Customs Act, 1962. The Customs Act defines 'export goods' and 'exporter,' emphasizing the entity involved in exporting goods. The shipping bills listed other companies as exporters, leading to the conclusion that the respondent did not meet the criteria as an exporter under the Customs Act.4. The Commissioner (Appeal) based the decision on preponderance factors beyond the scope of Notification No. 17/2009-ST, leading to the rejection of the adjudication orders. However, the presiding member disagreed with this assessment, upholding the adjudication orders and setting aside the Commissioner (Appeal)'s decision. Ultimately, the appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed, overturning the Commissioner (Appeal)'s ruling.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
